Parking offence case notes
Language: English Series: Property Week ; 73(36) 5 September 2008, 73(1)Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the case of Herbert v Doyle and Talati [2008] EWHC 1959 (Ch), 4 August 2008. After a bitter neighbours' dispute lasting over a decade, a property developer failed to obtain parking spaces needed for his development. A developer bought land near a dental surgery. The dentists transferred their parking spaces to the developer for new spaces, but were unhappy with the parking arrangements. It was agreed that the developer's plan could go ahead, but only if he complied with all aspects of an agreement to relocate the spaces. The developer did not do so. Held: small damages were awarded to the dentists as the developer had not upheld his side of the agreement, despite the fact that the agreement was not binding.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L145327 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 145327-1001 |
Discusses the case of Herbert v Doyle and Talati [2008] EWHC 1959 (Ch), 4 August 2008. After a bitter neighbours' dispute lasting over a decade, a property developer failed to obtain parking spaces needed for his development. A developer bought land near a dental surgery. The dentists transferred their parking spaces to the developer for new spaces, but were unhappy with the parking arrangements. It was agreed that the developer's plan could go ahead, but only if he complied with all aspects of an agreement to relocate the spaces. The developer did not do so. Held: small damages were awarded to the dentists as the developer had not upheld his side of the agreement, despite the fact that the agreement was not binding.